Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[belgianbull]

Just now, puc86 said:

Because it gets you another decade of getting paid handsomely for otherwise failing miserably and best of all none of it is coming out of your grifting pocket.

Couldn't disagree more. The OCS, no matter whether it helps in realignment or not, is a huge positive.

[puc86]

10 minutes ago, belgianbull said:

I dont see what the PAC realignment has to do with the OCS. If anything if we are going to be in the PAC we might need a slightly larger stadium since there will be an up tick in attendance when the games against Tulsa, North Texas, and Charlotte are replaced with OSU, Boise State, and San Diego State.

Because once again VPMK has us rebuilding the aac and never actually leaving, maybe he can end up the president when he is finished decimating our program.

[puc86]

Just now, belgianbull said:

Couldn't disagree more. The OCS, no matter whether it helps in realignment or not, is a huge positive.

Spending hundreds of millions of dollars for what will be less than 10k people to watch what will be left of the aac is the height of irresponsibility. They could have spent less than $100k making Corbett smaller and had a suitable OCS if one was somehow necessary.

[John Lewis]

7 minutes ago, 00Bull said:

Yeah figured it was a Hail Mary and that the recent year delay was purposeful to buy time, but man, I don’t know how you justify spending 1/3 billion dollars unless you have something ironclad. 

2026 was an aggressive year to begin with. The goal was the 2026 or 2027 season, which is still on track and not delayed.

[Sk00b]

Did we get an invite? There was too much **** to read through to catch up.

Edited September 13 by Sk00b

[Rocky Style]

16 minutes ago, 00Bull said:

Yeah figured it was a Hail Mary and that the recent year delay was purposeful to buy time, but man, I don’t know how you justify spending 1/3 billion dollars unless you have something ironclad. 

Why are you worried about justifying something though?  There are powers that be in place to safeguard that money and justify it.  The case has been made and it's happening.

[puc86]

Just now, Sk00b said:

Did we get an invite? There was too much **** to read through to catch up.

Nope. Even better. We get to do the inviting.

Just now, Rocky Style said:

Why are you worried about justifying something though?  There are powers that be in place to safeguard that money and justify it.  The case has been made and it's happening.

You left off the /s

[00Bull]

27 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

Why?  We want it.

Potentially diminishing revenue streams, if the AAC gets further watered down and we can’t get out.

[michibull]

The PAC2 added the best 4 schools that were no brainers. I believe they stopped there because it would be progressively more expensive for teams that didn’t add a lot. They would stop at 6 with the future in consideration. IF the ACC only loses FSU and Clemson, then adds USF and Memphis (or Tulane, UCONN, whoever the 2nd team is), they would pivot to the best of the AAC; if the ACC loses more and adds a group of 4-6 AAC teams, the PAC6 would take what’s leftover of the AAC west of the Mississippi, and UNLV. It is smart of the PAC 2 to take their time and make adjustments I. Accordance to the 2026 timeframe, no need to be hasty like the B12 was. 

[00Bull]

1 minute ago, Rocky Style said:

Why are you worried about justifying something though?  There are powers that be in place to safeguard that money and justify it.  The case has been made and it's happening.

If memory serves me correctly, there was already scrutiny/concern from the 3rd party auditor/consultant about the revenue projections. If realignment further impacts the feasibility, someone has to be the fiduciary in the room.